The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and the requirement for the party to approach the court with a reasonable defense.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral) CM.APPL No.12122/2023

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of.

FAO 58/2023 & CM.APPL No.12121/2023

3. By way of the present appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, the appellant/defendant No.1 seeks setting aside of order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the learned ADJ-08, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Misc. DJ No.320/2020 in New Suit No.08/2007 (Old Suit No.2261/1997) whereby his application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed.

4. Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that inasmuch as the Trial Court held the appellant liable for the conduct of his erstwhile counsel, it has not appreciated the facts in correct prospective. It is submitted that though the Trial Court observed that the appellant himself was a qualified advocate, it failed to appreciate that he was not a practicing advocate and only appears before the Income Tax Tribunal.

5. To appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the appellant, brief recapitulation of the facts is necessary. Respondent No.1/plaintiff had preferred the underlying suit for specific performance, injunction and recovery of money, thereby claiming that the appellant had executed a Receipt-Cum-Agreement dated 05.01.1994 in his favour with respect to < undivided share in land measuring 4 bighas 11 biswas in Khasra No.118, situated in Village Khera, Green Park, New Delhi.

6. The impugned order records that on filing of the plaint, the appellant was served on 23.04.1998 by way of affixation. A counsel engaged by the appellant filed his vakalatnama as well as appeared on 09.09.1998. Thereafter, neither the appellant/his counsel appeared nor any written statement was filed on his behalf. Accordingly, on 23.05.2000, the appellant was proceeded ex-parte by following order:

"23.05.2000

Present: Mr.Sanjay Sud for counsel for plaintiff.

Ms.Indermeet Sidhu counsel for defendant No.2.

Suit No.2261/97 & IA 10445/97

Neither written statement has been filed nor any one is present on behalf of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 is proceeded ex parte. Replication to the written statement of defendant No.2 has not been filed. At request, last opportunity is given to file replication within four weeks. Put up before the J.R. on 20th September, 2000 for admission/denial of the documents."

7. As the appellant remained unrepresented, the concerned Court passed an ex-parte decree on 11.09.2007. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC thereby seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree and ex-parte proceedings dated 23.05.2000. Another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also preferred by the appellant, seeking condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC. In the said application, it was stated that the appellant had duly engaged a counsel who got signed a vakalatnama and assured the appellant that he would appear. It was averred that the said counsel had assured the appellant that he need not appear as the matter was civil in nature. It was further averred that the said counsel had got drafted a written statement which was also stated to have been filed.

The appellant claimed that he often made enquiry from his counsel but was always misled about the status and dates of the case. On 02.09.2003, the appellant statedly met a junior of the counsel engaged by him who stated that the suit filed by respondent No.1 had been dismissed. Believing such statement, the appellant did not enquire any further. It was claimed that only on 29.08.2020, the appellant met respondent No.1 who informed him about passing of the decree on 11.09.2007 as well as execution of the sale deed through the Court.

8. In his reply filed to the appellant's application, respondent No.1 claimed that after passing of the decree dated 11.09.2007, he had initiated execution proc